2012 decisions

[Sebaldian]

I just recently found this forum and am
Hoping some film school grads in the industry can share their opinions with me. I have been accepted to USC, Calarts and the AFI directing MFA programs. I didn't apply anywhere else
and got into all three. What are some graduates feelings about these schools and their grooming for the industry? Also I have only received a scholarship from Calarts (10k) and even though USC decision deadline is today I still have not heard about inside funding.


I am also considering an offer from a cinema studies graduate program at the university of chicago that I will be visiting in a few weeks, though I doubt anybody here has experience with that program.

 

[DRaGZ]

I have a friend currently at USC, they have a very pragmatic approach to everything, even their own degree. Apparently, at the end of their first seminar, my friend's professor addressed to the class "to be honest, you won't be able to do anything with an MFA in filmmaking, but try your best and make friends, that's the best you can do". So they realize that it's tough out there, and they're trying to set you up for it with a Hollywood mindset. You also spend your first year learning everything before choosing a specialization, but from what I have heard, the slots for certain specializations may be limited, so you may not get the specialization you necessarily want.

Calarts depends on which program you've been accepted into. The character animation program pretty much guarantees a job in the industry. The film/video program, both BFA and MFA, are experimental, so take that for what you will. The film directing MFA is based on traditional narrative filmmaking. Both film/video and film directing emphasize a holistic approach to filmmaking and teach things from the mindset of an indie filmmaker. I guess you could say, while USC is Hollywood, Calarts is indie. Both USC and Calarts are pretty chill, from what I have heard.

AFI is Hollywood's bootcamp. They tear you down and rebuild you. It's also extremely intense, from what I have heard and what they told me in the interview. It's extremely rigidly structures, and in the directing program (I assume you're directing from other posts you've made), it's the literal "directing" program. You're not allowed to write any part of the first screenplay you make, and later projects you're encouraged to still let your screenwriter do the lion's share of writing. The valuable skill here is that AFI teaches directing in the same way Scorsese or Aronofsky would approach directing, in that they take existing material and make it their own instead of writing their own material off the bat. However, they told me in the interview process that "they are working on setting up things in the industry", which means they don't seem to have very much direct-to-industry options after you graduate.

So, the gist is:

USC: Holistic Hollywood mindset, transition to industry afterward
Calarts: Holistic indie mindset, transition to industry afterward
AFI: Old school Hollywood mindset, designed to hone directing, no clear transition to industry afterward

This is just the impressions I got after talking to a lot of people from these schools.

 

[Sebaldian]

Thanks. I can attest that the info you have about afi making you work with other peoples
Material is wrong as I have several friends in the directing program now who all wrote their own material. I am hoping there are some current students or grads on here that can share their opinions about life after afi or the other programs. Thanks!

 

[DRaGZ]

Well, you definitely cannot write your first cycle film, what happens is that you come to the table with a few concepts in mind, pitch it to the relevant crew members to assemble a crew, including a screenwriter, and then the screenwriter writes it.

Later on, you can collaborate on the script, but the emphasis is definitely on directors directing. After all, the material the people in the screenwriting program write are supposed to be used for the thesis films (unless the screenwriting fellows opt to write a feature-length screenplay in lieu of that), so it wouldn't make much sense to have directors completely take over that process.

It's a different, valuable approach, more in line with the way Hollywood does things. It's a valuable skill to know how to direct someone else's material.

 

[Sebaldian]

First cycle film, yes, but I'm talking more about thesis film. As I understand, if you can get your script 'greenlit', there are no reservations at all about having directors write their own screenplays. Of course the program is geared towards directing, because, well, you're a directing fellow. There's no prejudice against the auteur as far as I can tell, as long as you follow their strict production guidelines. Anyway... I shouldn't have derailed my own post

 

[DRaGZ]

Originally posted by Sebaldian:
First cycle film, yes, but I'm talking more about thesis film. As I understand, if you can get your script 'greenlit', there are no reservations at all about having directors write their own screenplays. Of course the program is geared towards directing, because, well, you're a directing fellow. There's no prejudice against the auteur as far as I can tell, as long as you follow their strict production guidelines.

No, there's no prejudice against any mindset, really, it's just they'd really encourage you, at the very least, co-write your thesis script with another screenwriting fellow.

It ultimately comes down to how quality they think your film will be.